Are Miracles Over-Ruled By Science?

Are miracles over-ruled by Science?
Should we believe?

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."   This quote from Albert Einstein portrays the difficulties surrounding Theology and Science and the possible need to work together.   Working together however has posed difficulties in the past and still remains true in the present.   Science; primarily based on methodology conflicts with the foundation of religion; a system of beliefs.   Yet stanch scientists have a system of belief as well; it is their driving force.   Scientists firmly believe that there is an explanation for everything.   Can Science prove that a miracle has a logical explanation?
Should we give up on the idea of a miracle?   Must we succumb to the concept that miracles do not exist?   Is it possible that any event we do not understand will be understood in the future?   This paper delves into this very idea should we or should we not believe?   I begin with the definition of a miracle, from this point I move on to what is considered the greatest miracle of all the creation of earth.   I will discuss the religious and the scientific theories of the event.   Deliberate on which theory is more plausible and close with what I believe holds more credibility.   In conclusion a summary of points brought forth will be given, and I will finish with what I judge to be true.

For this paper the definition of a miracle is taken from the publication Water into Wine?: An Investigation of the Concept of Miracle.   Larmer defines a miracle as:

“The idea that a miracle is a physical event which is beyond the ability of nature to produce is essentially and expression of our conviction that a miracle is supernaturally caused.   We are convinced that it cannot be explained in terms of the normal workings of nature, but demands explanation in terms of a transcendent cause.”[1]

With this definition can we arrive at the conclusion that the greatest miracle of all was the creation of Earth?...